Theists: what would be evidence for God's non-existence?

[epronovost]

Wow, so they started off with the answer, lol?

Euh no, they started from a series of hypothesis that so happened to be confirmed by numerous experiments and a wealth of medical cases. The most famous of which was that early 20th century railroad worker who had a radical change in personality after a work accident (a spike went through his head).

Neuroscience does provide a completely materialistic explanation for all the aspects of consciousness and can even demonstrate its accuracy by manipulating brain chemistry and structure to produce various effects. That's what you asked for and that's what it provides.

I suppose you will now move the goalpost as to shield your beliefs from that little requirement for something like "provide a materialistic explanation for consciousness that I prefer to my current beliefs and that has irrefutable proofs of its accuracy".

 

[George-ananda]

Euh no, they started from a series of hypothesis that so happened to be confirmed by numerous experiments and a wealth of medical cases. The most famous of which was that early 20th century railroad worker who had a radical change in personality after a work accident (a spike went through his head).

Neuroscience does provide a completely materialistic explanation for all the aspects of consciousness and can even demonstrate its accuracy by manipulating brain chemistry and structure to produce various effects. That's what you asked for and that's what it provides.

I suppose you will now move the goalpost as to shield your beliefs from that little requirement for something like "provide a materialistic explanation for consciousness that I prefer to my current beliefs and that has irrefutable proofs of its accuracy".

The Hard Problem of Consciousness is put out there by even non-religious/spiritual people like David Chalmers.

From Scholarpedia:

The hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers 1995) is the problem of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, and experience (i.e., phenomenal consciousness, or mental states/events with phenomenal qualities or qualia). Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?

 

[Windwalker]

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s non-existence?

If the things I was taught to believe in as a Christian turned out to not be factually true, but were only symbolically true. Oh wait, that's describing becoming an atheist.

 

[Moonjuice]

Riffing a bit on this other thread.

Whenever I say an absence of evidence for God is evidence of God’s non-existence, theists say “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s non-existence?

If God did not exist, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

(Edit: and I realize that not all theists believe in God-with-a-capital-G. I was a bit cutesy with the title and the OP as a riff on the previous thread. Please feel free to answer with your particular gods in mind, whatever they are, even if they aren't called "God")

Interesting question. This is one of the reasons I became convinced that there are probably no gods at all. The "evidence" provided for non-existent gods is identical to the "evidence" provided by people who think their god is actually real. They have everything in common. For me, the evidence I have supporting the non-existence of god is the same evidence I have for everything else that does not exist. Fairies, unicorns, sasquatch, ghosts, astrology, demons, angels etc.

 

[epronovost]

The Hard Problem of Consciousness is put out there by even non-religious/spiritual people like David Chalmers.

From Scholarpedia:

The hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers 1995) is the problem of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, and experience (i.e., phenomenal consciousness, or mental states/events with phenomenal qualities or qualia). Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?

If you read your own link (or the more complete version of Wikipedia or in the Stanford philosophy encyclopedia website), you will notice that there are several answers to that specific philosophical problem including a debate over if there is even such a thing as a hard problem of consciousness at all.

So, once again, if what you wanted is a credible, reasonable, explanation of consciousness that is completely materialistic, it already exist and has existed since the mid 60's.

 

[sun rise]

Wow, so they started off with the answer, lol?

Not only that but we still hear about the hard problem of consciousness in many academic sources so someone is not following the science.

 

[sun rise]

If you read your own link (or the more complete version of Wikipedia or in the Stanford philosophy encyclopedia website), you will notice that there are several answers to that specific philosophical problem including a debate over if there is even such a thing as a hard problem of consciousness at all.

So, once again, if what you wanted is a credible, reasonable, explanation of consciousness that is completely materialistic, it already exist and has existed since the mid 60's.

So all the scientists debating this are just full of crap?

 

[George-ananda]

If you read your own link (or the more complete version of Wikipedia or in the Stanford philosophy encyclopedia website), you will notice that there are several answers to that specific philosophical problem including a debate over if there is even such a thing as a hard problem of consciousness at all.

So, once again, if what you wanted is a credible, reasonable, explanation of consciousness that is completely materialistic, it already exist and has existed since the mid 60's.

Don’t debates and theories mean it’s all unsettled? I can come up with a spiritualist theory too.

I was looking for a materialist explanation that can be confirmed. I know materialist explanations can be hypothesized.

 

[blü 2]

Riffing a bit on this other thread.

Whenever I say an absence of evidence for God is evidence of God’s non-existence, theists say “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s non-existence?

If God did not exist, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

(Edit: and I realize that not all theists believe in God-with-a-capital-G. I was a bit cutesy with the title and the OP as a riff on the previous thread. Please feel free to answer with your particular gods in mind, whatever they are, even if they aren't called "God")

I think this is the same old problem.

Namely there's no definition of "God" appropriate to a real God, a being with objective existence, such that if we found a suspect, we could determine whether it was God or not.

There are ample definitions of imaginary Gods of course, and they often entail imaginary powers like omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, omnipresence, being eternal &c.

And each of us can have as many Gods that are purely conceptual / purely imaginary as we wish.

But as for real Gods, the question ─

What evidence would satisfy you God's non-existence?​

is as meaningless as

What evidence would satisfy you of God's existence?​

 

[epronovost]

So all the scientists debating this are just full of crap?

No scientist is debating this; it's a philosophical debates. Neuroscientist ignores the debate for it's outside their sphere of expertise and not really "useful", for lack of better words, to them. No matter the answer to that problem, it doesn't change the way your brain or your mind operates. Also, yes, an entire faction of philosopher do believe the hard problem of consciousness is basically a non-existent fallacious problem that begs the question. It wouldn't be the first time philosophers debate endlessly a largely non-existent problem. Take theodicy, over 2000 years of debates and arguments to try to bend reality and logic without success.

 

[epronovost]

Don’t debates and theories mean it’s all unsettled? I can come up with a spiritualist theory too.

I was looking for a materialist explanation that can be confirmed. I know materialist explanations can be hypothesized.

Well for the hard problem of consciousness to be considered important and unavoidable, it would have to be considered a valid problem and it's not really the case. Not only is that problem not without solutions, but it's very existence is highly questionable. Should materialists, who don't believe in the hard problem of consciousness, provide an answer to a hypothetical problems? It's the equivalent of tasking biologist to discover what's the sex of angels or leprechauns.

 

[crossfire]

Is there a point where "a different nature than expected" could no longer be reasonably considered God? Would we be able to run out of "particular ideas of God" to the point where there are no other ideas of God left?

If you substitute the concept of Self for the concept of God running out of "particular ideas of Self" (having no Self views) is being released from one of the three fetters that holds one back from being a "Stream Enterer" sotāpanna. (Declaring there is no Self is just as much in error as declaring there is a Self, as both positions are Self views.)

 

[sun rise]

No scientist is debating this; it's a philosophical debates. Neuroscientist ignores the debate for it's outside their sphere of expertise and not really "useful", for lack of better words, to them....

Scientists study what can be measured, of course. But you are trying to make an overly simplistic point.

Neuroscience does provide a completely materialistic explanation for all the aspects of consciousness and can even demonstrate its accuracy by manipulating brain chemistry and structure to produce various effects. That's what you asked for and that's what it provides.

But that's not the case. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214 discusses how far science is from a theory of consciousness with wildly different approaches from a strictly empirical viewpoint:.

In parallel, many Theories of Consciousness (ToCs) have been proposed. These theories are diverse in nature, ranging from computational to neurophysiological and quantum theoretical approaches.
...
Importantly, ToCs often make explicit or implicit metaphysical assumptions, such as subscribing to illusionist or realist ideas or relying on access or phenomenal consciousness. As mentioned, the focus of this contribution is only on how ToCs address empirical data about consciousness, such as masking, rivalry, or the difference between sleep and wakefulness. All scientific theories need empirical support regardless of their metaphysical assumptions, and therefore need to address the criteria. Because the criteria are geared toward explaining empirical data, they are strongly linked to behaviour. However, this does not mean that ToCs need to be behaviourist or functionalist. Our criteria are neutral regarding metaphysical assumptions and also apply to theories focussing on phenomenal consciousness, which require data if they want to be considered as empirical theories.

 

[George-ananda]

Well for the hard problem of consciousness to be considered important and unavoidable, it would have to be considered a valid problem and it's not really the case. Not only is that problem not without solutions, but it's very existence is highly questionable. Should materialists, who don't believe in the hard problem of consciousness, provide an answer to a hypothetical problems? It's the equivalent of tasking biologist to discover what's the sex of angels or leprechauns.

Your losing the track of what I am talking about. The question was ' what would be evidence for God's non-existence'?

And for me it would be an indisputable fully materialist explanation for consciousness. No such thing currently exists and I would predict will probably never exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you substitute the concept of Self for the concept of God )[...]

Why would we do that?

 

[crossfire]

Why would we do that?

I was highlighting a similar process that does lead to the analogous conclusion you presented in your post.

 

[Trailblazer]

Riffing a bit on this other thread.

Whenever I say an absence of evidence for God is evidence of God’s non-existence, theists say “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s non-existence?

If God did not exist, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

(Edit: and I realize that not all theists believe in God-with-a-capital-G. I was a bit cutesy with the title and the OP as a riff on the previous thread. Please feel free to answer with your particular gods in mind, whatever they are, even if they aren't called "God")

You cannot prove a negative, so you could never prove that God does not exist.

You also cannot obtain evidence for a non-existent entity.

On another note, when atheists say that God does not exist because there is no evidence that is illogical, because God could exist and provide no evidence of His existence. Evidence is just what people want to know that God exists, evidence does not make God exist.

 

[sayak83]

Riffing a bit on this other thread.

Whenever I say an absence of evidence for God is evidence of God’s non-existence, theists say “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s non-existence?

If God did not exist, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

(Edit: and I realize that not all theists believe in God-with-a-capital-G. I was a bit cutesy with the title and the OP as a riff on the previous thread. Please feel free to answer with your particular gods in mind, whatever they are, even if they aren't called "God")

A fully worked out material theory that explains the subjective " havingness" of experiences and the self-experience would be strong evidence against the Hindu concept of Self. So that would be one for my religion.

 

[Link]

If we didn't see God, it would mean he doesn't exist.

 

[`mud]

Ahhh....`Self` a magic word...`I am`...as `spoken` by `God`...to who ?

Can't `Spirits` be separate from `God` or any `gods` ? Do `idols` have spirits ?

Spirits don't need any `gods`, if they exist, then they can merge with other spirits.

If spirits are singular in each body, dead at death, no forwarding to anywhere ?

Something doesn't fit here, does it...and the belief in `spirits` go on !